Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phool Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-2457-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2457 of 2024
(PHOOL SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-08-2024
Shri Rajiv Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.9953 of 2024, which is first application under Section 389
(1) of CrPC filed on behalf of appellant No.1 - Phool Singh and Appellant No.3
Collector Singh for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Section 307/34
of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/- vide judgment dated 7.12.2023 passed by 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (MP) in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019.
3.Prosecution case in brief is that complainant - Than Singh lodged a report
at Police Station Sironj, District Vidisha to the effect that on 09.10.2019, Phool
Singh after cutting berry tree, placed its branches in front of the second house of
the complainant. About 5:00 PM when the complainant was taking bath after
coming back from field, he heard shouting, then he came out from his house and
saw that his father Hari Singh is asking Phool Singh as to why he has placed berry
branches, on which Phool Singh and his son Banwari started abusing him and co-
accused Banwari inflicted 3-4 blows of Farsa with intention to kill his father Hari
Singh due to which he sustained grievous injury on his head and fell down. Blood
was oozing out from his head. Thereafter Phool Singh, Collector Singh and Feron
Singh caused beating with sticks to his father Hari Singh. When complainant Than
Singh tried to save his father, then Banwari assaulted him by means of Farsa on
2 CRA-2457-2024
his head which hit above his left ear and others accused persons assaulted him
with sticks on his left hand and back. Father of complainant Hari Singh
succumbed to injury.
4.On the basis of aforesaid information FIR has been registered at crime no.
418/2019 against the appellants along with co-accused persons. After
investigation, police filed Challan. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to
the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon evaluation of evidence placed on
record has convicted and sentenced the present appellants as referred above.
5.Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that independent witnesses
have not supported the story of prosecution. Alleged incident has occurred in front
of house of the appellants and the house of the deceased is situated 300 to 400
meters away from the spot. Cross case is also registered against the complainant
party. The appellants have already suffered three years of incarceration. Eye-
witnesses have been developed by the complainant party. The complainant party
was aggressor in this case. The appeal is of the year 2024 and there is no
likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in near future. The appellants are ready to
abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. On these grounds,
learned Counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants.
6.Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the application by
submitting that as per the evidence on record it is established by the prosecution
that all three accused persons; present appellants and one co-accused Banwari in
pursuance of their common intention armed with deadly weapons have caused
marpeet with deceased Hari Singh and committed the offence of murder as well as
they also attempted to commit murder by inflicting injuries with deadly weapon to
3 CRA-2457-2024
the complainant. As per Ex.P-1 the incident occurred in front of the complainant's
house. No house of the accused persons have been shown in the spot map. Though
the present appellants were armed with sticks but they in pursuance of their
common object with other accused persons have actively took part in the incident
by committing marpeet and co-accused Banwari has used deadly weapon Farsa.
As per the evidence and the finding of the trial Court accused persons including
present appellants were the aggressor, therefore, the factum of cross case is of no
help to the appellants. No case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence to
the appellants.
7 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record,
keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and act of present appellants
in the incident, in our considered opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of suspension
of sentence to the appellants.
8. Accordingly, IA No.9953 of 2024 is dismissed.
9. Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ahmad
